Hi,
I think it might be better to polish the interface later on during the
integration of contribution service stuff that Luciano is working on.
Anyway, some comments below.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:08 AM
Subject: ArtifactResolver questions
On Mar 16, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
Contribution is the model object that hosts the metadata and
introspected result for the contribution. Logically, you can use the URI
of the contribution to look up the ContributionService to get the
Contribution. I found it simpler for ArtifactResolver extensions to
receive Contribution directly.
Doesn't this just move the responsibility for lookup to the caller of
this SPI? And given the caller should not know about the implementation,
it has to be passed every time even if the resolver does not need that
information?
I thought "lookup once" at the higher level is better.
Actually, why is this a parameter at all? What makes Contribution
different from any other attribute passed in the Map?
The Map is used to hold addiontal attributes to further constrain the query
and the entries are resolver-specific as I understand. I think we like the
"strongly-typed" approach more.
Finally, why is DeploymentContext passed - can't I use this outside the
load phase?
My orginal mindset is that we need some context for the resolving, for
example, a resolver might use the classloader to resolve relative URIs.
Isn't DeploymentContext designed for Load/Resolve/Build?
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
